DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 01/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 17 and 19 have been amended. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2026 and 01/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
*Note – The English translation provided for the Japanese application JP 2012-128651 does not match the country code of the Japanese application. The English translation provided by applicant references Russian application RU 2012128651 as opposed to JP 2012128651.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of the amendment to the claimed subject matter excluding propagation media from the claimed computer readable medium, the examiner hereby withdraws the previous grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikazu Ito (US 20090279110 A1) in view of Vadlamannati Venkateswar et al (US 6532016 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a system comprising one or more processors (¶ [58]) to:
receive a print job file including page content data associated with each page of the print job file (¶ [85-86] and ¶ [94]);
receive print job structure metadata (¶ [94]); and
process the print job file using the print job structure metadata to generate page image data for the page content data (¶ [102-103]), wherein the print job structure metadata comprises page element metadata associated with each of a plurality of pages of the page content data (¶ [131-135] objects describing rendering data such as lines, polygons, curves, etc.; metadata expresses characteristics of plurality of objects collectively for each region of a page in its entirety (Fig. 14)).
Ito fails to explicitly disclose the page element metadata is used to enable scan conversion for a page.
Venkateswar et al, in the same field of endeavor of processing vector graphic objects to print data via a printer interpreter (Col. 1 lines 23-40), teaches utilizing page element metadata to enable scan conversion for a page (Col. Lines 45-58 wherein objects described in a graphical form (e.g., vector-graphics) prompt scan conversion while continuous tone objects undergo halftoning; *Note the page undergoes scan conversion and halftoning depending on the elements of the page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Ito comprising one or more processors which process a print job file using print job structure metadata to generate page image data for page content data ,wherein the print job structure metadata comprises page element metadata associated with each of a plurality of pages of the page content data to utilize the teachings of Venkateswar et al which teaches utilizing print job structure metadata to enable scan conversion for a page as scan conversion of vector graphic objects bests defines what pixels are part of an object to produce the best quality image as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the page element metadata comprises page element properties associated with each of a plurality of page elements in the page content data (¶ [135] objects; describing lines, polygons, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Ito discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the one or more processors use the print job structure metadata as conditional processing control data input to determine whether scan conversion is enabled (¶ [97-100] processing control data to generate layout information of physical page data; see rejection of claim 1 wherein the presence of vector graphic objects prompts (enables) scan conversion).
Regarding claim 4, Ito discloses the system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), wherein processing the print job file comprises using the print job structure metadata to identify logical pages of the print job file corresponding to each of the plurality of page elements (¶ [71] and ¶ [79]).
Regarding claim 11, Ito discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), further comprising one or more print engines to print the page image data (¶ [66]).
Regarding claim 12, Ito discloses at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors (¶ [179]), cause the processors to:
receive a print job file including page content data associated with each page of the print job file (see rejection of claim 1);
receive print job structure metadata (see rejection of claim 1); and
process the print job file using the print job structure metadata to generate page image data for the page content data, wherein the print job structure metadata comprises page element metadata associated with each of a plurality of pages of the page content data used to enable scan conversion for a page (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Ito discloses the computer readable medium of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12), wherein the page element metadata comprises page element properties associated with each of a plurality of page elements in the page content data (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 14, Ito discloses the computer readable medium of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12), having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to use the print job structure metadata as conditional processing control data input to determine whether scan conversion is enabled (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 15, Ito discloses the computer readable medium of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13), wherein processing the print job file comprises using the print job structure metadata to identify logical pages of the print job file corresponding to each of the plurality of page elements (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 17, Ito discloses a method (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
receiving a print job file including page content data associated with each page of the print job file (see rejection of claim 1);
receiving print job structure metadata (see rejection of claim 1); and
processing the print job file using the print job structure metadata to generate page image data for the page content data, wherein the print job structure metadata comprises page element metadata associated with each of a plurality of pages of the page content data used to enable scan conversion for a page (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Ito discloses the method of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17), wherein the page element metadata comprises page element properties associated with each of a plurality of page elements in the page content data (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 19, Ito discloses the method of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17), further comprising using the print job structure metadata as conditional processing control data input to determine whether scan conversion is enabled (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 20, Ito discloses the method of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18), wherein processing the print job file comprises using the print job structure metadata to identify logical pages of the print job file corresponding to each of the plurality of page elements (see rejection of claim 4).
Claims 5, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikazu Ito (US 20090279110 A1) in view of Venkateswar et al as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yasunori Kani (US 20170237876 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ito discloses the system of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Ito fails to explicitly disclose using the print job structure metadata to determine whether each of the identified logical pages is eligible for center scan conversion (CSC) or not eligible for CSC.
Kanai, in the same field of endeavor of implementing display list generation, rendering processing and PDL interpretation to generate image data (¶ [28]), teaches determining whether each of the identified logical pages is eligible for center scan conversion (CSC) or not eligible for CSC (¶ [54] and ¶ [64] wherein only pixels for which the center of the pixel is within an object rendering region are filled in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclose by Ito comprising one or more processors to process a print job file using print job structure metadata to generate page image data for page content data to utilize the teachings of Kanai which teaches determining whether each of the identified logical pages is eligible for center scan conversion (CSC) or not eligible for CSC to provide the best quality output image in accordance with the type of object printed.
Regarding claim 6, Ito discloses the system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Ito fails to explicitly disclose wherein processing the print job file further comprises enabling over scan conversion (OSC) for each of the not eligible for CSC logical pages.
Kanai teaches enabling over scan conversion (OSC) for each of the not eligible for CSC logical pages (¶ [79] wherein pixels that intersect the object rendering region are filled in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclose by Ito comprising one or more processors to process a print job file using print job structure metadata to generate page image data for page content data to utilize the teachings of
Regarding claim 16, Ito discloses the computer readable medium of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15), wherein processing the print job file further comprises using the print job structure metadata to determine whether each of the identified logical pages is eligible for center scan conversion (CSC) or not eligible for CSC (see rejection of claim 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
March 25, 2026